This was my question to the author of the website…
————————————————-
Dan,
First of all would like to say i like reading your articles and your non biased and non influenced view upon which you present the articles.
Firstly i am a personal trainer from australia and im currently working to studying my degree in nutrition, upon the hopes of one day presenting an actual and factual no bullshit account of the truths of muscle building.
Your article on are body builders just “glycogen”, appealed to me quite astoundingly as this is one “idea” or “concept”, that im trying to establish the truth of.
So i really apprichate your view on the subject and would like your thoughts on the following questions if you have the time.
Ok so the theory that bodybuilders are just puffed up water weight or stored glycogen ect, is something that is intriging me.
Take for instance the “standard” rep recomendations for the “different” types of muscular growth ect.
ok so take for instance 1 to 3 reps near but not to failure on a cycling programme focued on above 85 percent max weight will allow for maximum neurological strength gains with little increase in the size or volume of the muscle.
Now say 3- 8 reps reaching failure ensuring maximum weight to failure low volume would focus more on the ” myofibrillar” growth of the actual muscle.
Now in terms of sacroplasmic growth from everything that i have learnt, read, studied, this would be higher rep ranges to failure more reps more sets = more fatigue which requires different adaptions of the muscles.
eg. due to this fatigue of reps and sets ect the body adapts to increase its storage capicity of atp, creatine, glycogen, ect in order to handle this “differnt” stress and metabolic requirement that has been handed to it.
Put bloody simply, its been run into the ground and fatigued, it adapts in order to handle this stress next time better.
Ok so for instance focuses on increasing strenght reguardless of rep range, ( since increased volume or a better wording increased strength or load over time), is the only proven requirment of building muscle, then if this occurs reguardless of the rep range there will me adaptions int he myfibrillar context. EVEN IF is is a pump and rep typical bodybuilder workout.
Now we have established that one can increas size without strength, one can increase strength and actual myfibrillar growth and some volume and myfrib growth.
So the question that i ask to you is you state that there really is no scientific evidence of sacroplasmic growth, take the follwoing for example./
Take a trained person who has been focusing on max strength in terms of 4 -8 reps to failure 1 or two sets with decent gains in the past year in so called “true” muscle growth, hard dense and compact.
Now if for a month you switch this person to a pump and rep high stress high fatigue routine focusing on “sacroplasmic”,growth you will undoubtedly see a very visible and scale measurable increase in the size, growth and volume of the individuals muscles due to the increase storage of glycogen, creatine ect.
This will happen, the individual is allready adavnced growthwise and strenght wise so this growth is comming directly from what you have “appeard”, to disprove doesnt actually exist.
Now if this person returns to there normal programme after sometime this “sacroplasmic” growth will receed due to the bodys no further requirment to keep the extra energy storage becaused its no longer being stressed and fatigued in this manner.
Would love as detailed a reply on your thoughts to this in contrast to what you wrote in your article.
My belief is that this Growth does actually occur and the increasced cell volume and storage is a definitive thing.
————————————-

What are your thoughts on this that sacroplasmic growth doesnt acually exist???
Respect your knowledge and thoughts and would very greatly apprichate your thoughts on the topic especially lyle. Im all for the no bull answers and concepts which is all part of the book im currently writing.
Your thoughts are indeed respected.
Cheers mark

Typical gym-rat question.